Readers' thoughts on 9/11 'conspiracies'

9/11 Conspiracies. Illustration by Mick Wiggins, special to the Chronicle

9/11 Conspiracies. Illustration by Mick Wiggins, special to the Chronicle

Image
1of/1

Caption

Close

Image 1 of 1

9/11 Conspiracies. Illustration by Mick Wiggins, special to the Chronicle

9/11 Conspiracies. Illustration by Mick Wiggins, special to the Chronicle

Readers' thoughts on 9/11 'conspiracies'

1 / 1

Back to Gallery

Editor -- I am very pleased to see a mainstream media source such as The Chronicle address the subject of the 9/11 conspiracy (Insight, "The conspiracy to rewrite 9/11," Sept. 3). It is time that this subject be brought to the public. Even if you are not a "truth activist," the official explanation of the 9/11 events has many inconsistencies that warrant further investigation.

How about why the government hasn't released more of the many video surveillance tapes clearly showing a commercial airline hitting the Pentagon? What do they have to hide? Or how about why William Rodriguez' testimony to the 9/11 Commission (given in a closed session) about how he and 14 other witnesses in the B2 (second-basement level) floor of the north World Trade Center tower heard and felt an explosion below them, then saw a man who came into the room badly burned screaming, "Explosion, Explosion!," before they felt the first plane hit, yet it was never mentioned in the final report? Wasn't it significant enough to investigate?

The significance of the events of 9/11 on the American people can never be forgotten. We have been drawn into compromising our Constitution via the Patriot Act, invaded two countries and are still deeply engaged in one of them for more than three years with more than 2,600 soldiers dead and tens of thousands of wounded at a cost of more than $300 billion, so far. We need to be certain that the reasons for this sacrifice are legitimate.

LEONARD J. SKOTNICKI

Nevada City (Nevada County)

Editor -- Jonathan Curiel's article on 9/11 (Insight, "The conspiracy to rewrite 9/11" Sept. 3) was slanted as if he became anxious at the very idea of treason by insiders in our government or by allies.

Hence, a peculiar use of language. He informs us, without providing any evidence, that the idea that the CIA orchestrated the attacks or that Israel may have planned them is "fantastical" and furthermore, represents "the epitome of preposterous beliefs," yet fails to mention the admitted use of false flag operations by covert agencies.

He goes on to inform us, once again without evidence, that "Each new month brings a deluge of crackpot theories..." but doesn't tell us how he decided which theories are "crackpot."

I believe there are enough unanswered questions about 9/11 that it is fair and reasonable for Americans to want a new investigation. Would Curiel object if President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were required to testify separately and under oath, or would he think that idea would be preposterous?

ROGER KOTILA

Novato

Editor -- Jonathon Curiel has, with his feature, "The conspiracy to rewrite 9/11," not only muddled many zany conspiracy charges, but has added fuel to a totally falsely constructed fire. He also has denigrated many who died and many of their kin by his cavalier treatment of this cult-like issue.

While Curiel has not tacitly given credence to any of these creepy theories, he also has not asked for any of these untethered minds to prove any of their baseless charges. To give life to a thoroughly discredited conspiracy by providing it with a public platform smacks of yellow journalism.

ROLAND MARTIN

Editor -- We know that the deaths of nearly 3,000 American soldiers in Iraq were based on a series of lies.

Why, then, is it so hard to believe that we might not have been told the truth about the deaths of nearly 3,000 American in New York City, Pennsylvania and the Pentagon?

Can a person (or government) who lies ever be trusted to tell the truth?

Why wouldn't President Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney testify under oath before the politically appointed 9/11 "investigators"? What was it about raising his hand and swearing to tell the truth ("so help me God") that the president had trouble with?

M. CONENS

Sacramento

Editor -- Overlooked in recent coverage of theories about foreknowledge and even complicity with the 9/11 attacks is the administration's failure to track down who placed and profited from the put options on United and American airlines. This purchase on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange several days prior to the event was noted in major print media, including The Chronicle, two days later on Sept. 13.

But neither has there been any statements from the authorities nor mention in the 9/11 commission's "final report" about who stood to profit from these options and if he or she had advance knowledge of the attacks. A credible investigation needs to start here.

BILL STREMMEL

Walnut Creek

Editor -- Does Jonathan Curiel believe that older adults somehow have a better ability to evaluate world events than do younger adults? This appears to be the case or why would the only person in his column whose age he cites be Avery (22), creator of "Loose Change," a film that supports the "conspiracy" theorists? Curiel adds, with more than a hint of disparagement, that Avery's film has an anti-authoritarian edge "that might appeal to someone who admires Michael Moore or Jon Stewart." I'm 75 years old and greatly admire both Moore and Stewart. And also H.L. Mencken who said: "The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom."

RONALD RUBIN

Topanga (Los Angeles County)

Editor -- Please accept my compliments for the article, "The conspiracy to rewrite 9/11" (Insight, Sept. 3). This is journalism as it should be, a very balanced article describing opposing versions of a significant event and treating both with respect. With this type of journalism, you acknowledge the intelligence and maturity of your readers and give us the opportunity to think critically and analyze the event for ourselves -- thank you.

Two 9/11 specifics intrigue me. First, why did the 47-story World Trade Center Building No. 7, whose owner has a suspicious relationship to the entire project, fall down for no reason?

Secondly, your newspaper reported that an NYPD helicopter pilot was warning people for 29 minutes that the tower was going to collapse. Presumably he was not a structural engineer, so how did he know this in advance?

Historically, in addition to researching Pearl Harbor, I encourage your readers to look critically at the 1898 sinking of the battleship Maine; the 1933 Reichstag fire and the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident.